Political Geography: Global Focus / Publication Year: within 25 Years and within 10 Years / Topic: Democracy

1. Why Does the Global Spyware Industry Continue to Thrive? Trends, Explanations, and Responses

Author:: Steven Feldstein and Brian (Chun Hey) Kot
Publication Date:: 03-2023
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:: The global spyware and digital forensics industry continues to grow despite public backlash following an array of surveillance scandals, many linked to NSO Group’s Pegasus program. This paper explores the resilience of the commercial spyware market and offers ideas about how to limit the spread of invasive cyber surveillance tools. It highlights several factors driving the industry, including elevated demand for intrusion technology from government clients and private customers, as well as inconsistent political will from democratic governments to crack down on these technologies.
Topic:: Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Democracy, Surveillance, Industry, Forensic Science, and Autocracy
Political Geography:: Global Focus

2. An Economic Defense of Multiple Antitrust Goals: Reversing Income Inequality and Promoting Political Democracy

Author:: Mark Glick
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:: Two recent papers by prominent antitrust scholars argue that a revived antitrust movement can help reverse the dramatic rise in economic inequality and the erosion of political democracy in the United States. Both papers rely on the legislative history of the key antitrust statutes to support their case. Not surprisingly, their recommendations have been met with alarm in some quarters and with skepticism in others. Such proposals by antitrust reformers are often contrasted with the Consumer Welfare Standard that pervades antitrust policy today. The Consumer Welfare Standard suffers from several defects: (1) It employs a narrow, unworkable measure of welfare; (2) It excludes important sources of welfare based on the assumption that antitrust seeks only to maximize wealth; (3) It assumes a constant and equal individual marginal utility of money; and (4) It is often combined with extraneous ideological goals. Even with these defects, however, if applied consistent with its theoretical underpinnings, the consideration of the transfer of labor rents resulting from a merger or dominant firm conduct is supported by the Consumer Welfare Standard. Moreover, even when only consumers (and not producers) are deemed relevant, the welfare of labor still should consistently be considered part of consumer welfare. In contrast, fostering political democracy—a prominent traditional antitrust goal that was jettisoned by the Chicago School—falls outside the Consumer Welfare Standard in any of its constructs. To undergird such important broader goals requires that the Consumer Welfare Standard be replaced with the General Welfare Standard. The General Welfare Standard consists of modern welfare economics modified to accommodate objective analyses of human welfare and purged of inconsistencies.
Topic:: Economics, Democracy, Income Inequality, and Antitrust Law
Political Geography:: Global Focus

3. AI Startups and the Fight Against Mis/Disinformation Online: An Update

Author:: Anya Schiffrin, Hiba Beg, Pablo Eyzaguirre, Zachey Kliger, Tianyu Mao, Aditi Rukhaiyar, Kristen Saldarini, and Ojani Walthrust
Publication Date:: 07-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:: The events following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have shown again the power of online mis/disinformation. As it continues to grow and spread, there are new and continuing attempts to address this problem. These include supply-side and demand-side fixes (including media-literacy programs, fact-checking and, in Europe, new regulations) but few of these have scaled. This paper looks at one kind of supply-side attempt to tackle the prevalence of online mis/disinformation: the market for tech-based solutions that use some form of artificial intelligence (AI) machine/deep learning for content moderation, media integrity, and verification. This paper presents the findings of interviews of 20 niche firms that use AI to identify online mis/disinformation, many of which were previously surveyed for a 2019 paper on the role of AI startups in the fight against disinformation. These companies did not release their revenue figures but it seems that the market for their services is smaller than many entrepreneurs had originally hoped, and that Google and Facebook are not relying on such firms for help in identifying online mis/disinformation. The cost of the services provided by these startups and the desire to keep things in-house and protect their activities from outside scrutiny are part of why the tech giants do not rely on small startups for help with screening online mis/disinformation. This may be why funding for these startups does not seem to have grown significantly and so more than half of them are now focusing on the business-to-business market, selling mis/disinformation mitigation services to, for example, insurance companies, large public entities, and governments, among others. There also appears to be a limited market for business-to-consumer solutions for detecting mis/disinformation. However, continuing advances in AI as well as forthcoming regulation by the European Union and the United Kingdom will continue to spur innovation, which may stimulate demand. University initiatives, academics, journalism organizations, and cybersecurity experts are all also trying to come up with ways to identify and control the spread of mis/disinformation. Ultimately, despite its advances, technology alone will not solve the online mis/disinformation problem. Giant social media platforms have few financial incentives to crack down on this—quite the opposite, in fact. To push social media platforms to act against online mis/disinformation and illegal speech, regulation must deftly address the issue while preserving freedom of expression. There is a further problem in the form of the political polarization that has intensified in the United States and other parts of the world. Fixing this is likely to be well beyond the role of business and technologists.
Topic:: Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Democracy, Artificial Intelligence, Disinformation, Misinformation, and Startup
Political Geography:: Global Focus

4. AI Audit-Washing and Accountability

Author:: Ellen P. Goodman
Publication Date:: 11-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:: We are still some distance from a worldwide robot takeover, but artificial intelligence (AI)—the training of computer systems with large data sets to make decisions and solve problems—is revolutionizing the way governments and societies function. AI has enormous potential: accelerating innovation, unlocking new value from data, and increasing productivity by freeing us from mundane tasks. AI can draw new inferences from health data to foster breakthroughs in cancer screening or improve climate modeling and early-warning systems for extreme weather or emergency situations. As we seek solutions to today’s vexing problems—climate disruption, social inequality, health crises—AI will be central. Its centrality requires that stakeholders exercise greater governance over AI and hold AI systems accountable for their potential harms, including discriminatory impact, opacity, error, insecurity, privacy violations, and disempowerment. In this context, calls for audits to assess the impact of algorithmic decision-making systems and expose and mitigate related harms are proliferating1 , accompanied by the rise of an algorithmic auditing industry and legal codification. These are welcome developments. Audits can provide a flexible co-regulatory solution, allowing necessary innovation in AI while increasing transparency and accountability. AI is a crucial element of the growing tech competition between authoritarian and democratic states—and ensuring that AI is accountable and trusted is a key part of ensuring democratic advantage. Clear standards for trustworthy AI will help the United States remain a center of innovation and shape technology to democratic values. The “algorithmic audit” nevertheless remains ill-defined and inexact, whether concerning social media platforms or AI systems generally. The risk is significant that inadequate audits will obscure problems with algorithmic systems and create a permission structure around poorly designed or implemented AI. A poorly designed or executed audit is at best meaningless and at worst even excuses harms that the audits claim to mitigate. Inadequate audits or those without clear standards provide false assurance of compliance with norms and laws, “audit-washing” problematic or illegal practices. Like green-washing and ethics-washing before, the audited entity can claim credit without doing the work. To address these risks, this paper identifies the core questions that need answering to make algorithmic audits a reliable AI accountability mechanism. The “who” of audits includes the person or organization conducting the audit, with clearly defined qualifications, conditions for data access, and guardrails for internal audits. The “what” includes the type and scope of audit, including its position within a larger sociotechnical system. The “why” covers audit objectives, whether narrow legal standards or broader ethical goals, essential for audit comparison. Finally, the “how” includes a clear articulation of audit standards, an important baseline for the development of audit certification mechanisms and to guard against audit-washing. Algorithmic audits have the potential to transform the way technology works in the 21st century, much as financial audits transformed the way businesses operated in the 20th century. They will take different forms, either within a sector or across sectors, especially for systems which pose the highest risk. But as algorithmic audits are encoded into law or adopted voluntarily as part of corporate social responsibility, the audit industry must arrive at shared understandings and expectations of audit goals and procedures. This paper provides such an outline so that truly meaningful algorithmic audits can take their deserved place in AI governance frameworks.
Topic:: Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Democracy, Regulation, Accountability, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:: Global Focus

5. How Populism Dies: Political Weaknesses of Personalistic Plebiscitarian Leadership

Author:: Kurt Weyland
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Political Science Quarterly
Institution:: Academy of Political Science
Abstract:: Kurt Weyland examines the weaknesses of populist leadership. He argues that populist leaders are prone to errors and misdeeds, have difficulty dealing with other political forces, and face institutional and external constraints. Consequently, he concludes, they damage and suffocate democracy not as easily and frequently as recent observers have feared.
Topic:: Democracy, Leadership, Populism, and Political Science
Political Geography:: Global Focus

6. U.S. Democracy Aid and the Conditional Effects of Donor Interests, Media Attention and Democratic Change, 1975-2010

Author:: James M. Scott, Charles M. Rowling, and Timothy M. Jones
Publication Date:: 07-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:: Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:: Democracy promotion emerged as a US foreign policy priority during the late 20th century, especially after the Cold War. Scarce resources, however, require policymakers to make difficult choices about which countries should receive democracy aid and which ones should not. Previous studies indicate that a variety of factors shape democracy aid allocations, including donor strategic interests and democratic openings within potential recipient states. Research has also shown that media coverage plays a significant role in these decisions. We model the conditional effects of media attention and regime shifts on US democracy aid decisions, controlling for other recipient and donor variables. We argue that these factors are contingent on the salience, in terms of broad interest profiles, of a particular country for policymakers. The donor’s overall level of interest in a potential recipient systematically shapes the effects of media attention on democracy assistance. Broadly speaking, low-interest conditions elevate the agenda-setting impact of media attention and regime conditions/shifts while high-interest conditions reduce that effect. To assess these contingent relationships, we examine US democracy aid from 1975-2010. Our results support our argument and present a more nuanced explanation of the relationship between the media’s agenda-setting role, recipient characteristics and donor interests.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Democracy, Media, and Donors
Political Geography:: Global Focus and United States of America

7. Aid’s impact on democracy

Author:: Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Ana Horigoshi, and Rachel M. Gisselquist
Publication Date:: 02-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: United Nations University
Abstract:: This paper investigates the impact of foreign aid on democratic outcomes using a panel of countries for the period between 1995 and 2018. In so doing, it speaks to a major critique of foreign aid, which is that it negatively impacts democratic governance. The analysis distinguishes between developmental aid and democracy aid, and examines democracy aid to specific sectors, in order to explore variation across different aid types. It draws on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Creditor Reporting System (CRS) data on foreign aid and indices of democracy from the Varieties of Democracy project, employing a combination of a maximum likelihood estimation and structural equation modelling (ML-SEM) model and fixed effects models. Overall, using a more extensive set of data and methods than previous analyses, we offer comprehensive evidence pointing to aid having a positive if modest impact on democratic outcomes. Our analysis suggests this effect is more significant for democracy aid than developmental aid, but there is no evidence of negative impact for either. These results are robust to multiple specifications.
Topic:: Development, Foreign Aid, and Democracy
Political Geography:: Global Focus

8. People or Technology: What Drives Democracy

Author:: Paul Nemitz
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Institution:: Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Abstract:: There is no doubt that technology has shaped democracy. However, it is also the legal rules concerning technology which have shaped and have been shaped by democracy. Developing and using technologies according to democratic rules is what we need. There are libertarians today who deliberately design technological systems in a way that makes control by democratic states increasingly difficult. However, there is sufficient counter power and engagement, at least in Europe, to ensure that democracy functions and we work together to produce rules that are sensible for the future of democracy and confirm the supremacy of democracy over technology and business interests.
Topic:: Science and Technology, Democracy, Business, and Rule of Law
Political Geography:: Global Focus

9. AI Challenging Sovereignty and Democracy

Author:: Paul Timmers
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Institution:: Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Abstract:: AI is wonderful. AI is scary. AI is the path to paradise. AI is the path to hell. What do we make of these contradictory images when, in a world of AI, we seek to both protect sovereignty and respect democratic values? Neither a techno-utopian nor a dystopian view of AI is helpful. The direction of travel must be global guidance and national or regional AI law that stresses end-to-end accountability and AI transparency, while recognizing practical and fundamental limits. We also need a deeper understanding of tensions between AI and sovereignty and democratic values, in order to address them in the interplay of the social construction of sovereignty and democracy and the technological construction of AI
Topic:: Science and Technology, Sovereignty, Democracy, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:: Global Focus

10. Democratizing AI

Author:: Mark Findlay
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Institution:: Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Abstract:: How can we locate the position of Artificial Intelligence when it comes to democracy? Rather than trying to put a framework built on an agent-based or globalization contexed approach, this paper aims to evaluate the Artificial Intelligence from a contextual perspective. While doing so an attempt on understanding how it can function within a community gains a considerable foothold. To achieve a success in such an attempt, two of the most important democratic discourses that resonate on this ground emerge critical: rule of law and the sustainable development goals. Especially, the recent Covid pandemic gave a considerable case study through which we can completely comprehend both of the matters of how AI can be used in surveillance and how can we be sure that it can be democratized.
Topic:: Globalization, Science and Technology, Democracy, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:: Global Focus

11. Increasing the Success and Sustainability of Democracy and Governance Interventions in Post-conflict Countries

Author:: Fernanda Buril
Publication Date:: 01-2022
Content Type:: Research Paper
Institution:: International Foundation for Electoral Systems
Abstract:: n countries riven by conflict, weak institutions, social divisions and grievances, political strife and security threats can hinder efforts to build or rebuild democracy and good governance. Donors and implementers need evidence of what works to better support partners in these contexts, optimize resources and adapt and improve programs. Increasing the Success and Sustainability of Democracy and Governance Interventions in Post-conflict Countries: Analyzing Literature Findings and Partner Perspectives, focuses on the perspectives of partners on the receiving end of CEPPS assistance, examines specific approaches that CEPPS took to support democratization and stabilization in post-conflict environments and analyzes the success and sustainability of these interventions. Its recommendations can be used by donors and implementers to design and implement more effective programs.
Topic:: Governance, Democracy, Political stability, and Conflict
Political Geography:: Global Focus

12. Competition between Democracy and Autocracy: The Defining Challenge of the 21st Century

Author:: Derek Mitchell
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:: Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:: Ambassador Derek Mitchell is the president of the National Democratic In- stitute. He served as the U.S. ambassador to Myanmar from 2012 –2016, following a long and distinuguished career in and outside the government.
Topic:: International Affairs, Democracy, Strategic Competition, and Autocracy
Political Geography:: Global Focus

13. Government Internet Shutdowns Are Changing. How Should Citizens and Democracies Respond?

Author:: Steven Feldstein
Publication Date:: 03-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:: Governments worldwide continue to deploy internet shutdowns and network disruptions to quell mass protests, forestall election losses, reinforce military coups, or cut off conflict areas from the outside world. Data from the past few years show that incidences of global shutdowns have remained steadily high: 196 documented incidents in 2018, 213 incidents in 2019, and 155 in 2020. The first five months of 2021 recorded fifty shutdown incidents.1 Government-instigated internet shutdowns largely took place in relation to five event types: mass demonstrations, military operations and coups, elections, communal violence and religious holidays, and school exams. As Clément Voule, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, pointedly observes: “Shutdowns are lasting longer, becoming harder to detect and targeting particular social media and messaging applications and specific localities and communities.”2 Events in Russia have put a finer point on internet shutdown trends. On March 4, 2022, Roskomnadzor, the Russian internet regulator, announced that it would block Facebook and Twitter and would ban new uploads to TikTok.3 On March 14, it added Instagram to the banned list.4 Russian authorities have also restricted access to a slew of news websites, including the BBC, Deutsche Welle, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Voice of America. Roskomnadzor claimed these measures were enacted in response to new limits imposed by platforms on Russian propaganda outlets—accusing Facebook of “discrimination.”5 The Kremlin’s crackdown is an ominous signal about where the shutdown struggle is headed in authoritarian countries. Despite these bleak trends, there is a growing international consensus—at least among liberal democracies—that protecting internet access is integrally linked to freedoms of expression and association and forms a crucial part of the global democracy and human rights agenda. This paper picks up on this emerging norm and probes several key questions: What can citizens do to evade authoritarian controls and regain internet access? How can democratic governments support these efforts and push back against governments that shut down and block the internet? The short answer is that there is a multitude of responses available to democracies and civil society organizations to push back against internet blackouts and network disruptions. Democracies can exert meaningful pressure against repressive governments to ease internet blocks, and citizens are able to exercise creative options to circumvent internet controls. The paper walks through different tools available to citizens to evade internet controls. It examines where internet shutdown trends are headed and incentives for particular regimes to adopt new modes of censorship. It then presents a multifaceted strategy for democracies, civil society organizations, and technology developers and companies to counter internet shutdowns.
Topic:: Government, Science and Technology, Democracy, and Internet
Political Geography:: Russia and Global Focus

14. International Democracy Promotion in Times of Autocratization: From Supporting to Protecting Democracy

Author:: Julia Leininger
Publication Date:: 01-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:: The worldwide wave of autocratization is doing away with many of the democratic achievements made since 1989. Scholarship on international democracy promotion is yet to theorise how democracy can be protected from autocratization. Such a theory must account for different democratic and autocratic trajectories as well as integrate theoretical approaches from international relations and comparative politics in the study of democracy promotion. However, such a combined perspective is still missing. One reason for this is that the field lacks a clear concept of “protection” and does not yet systematically integrate evidence from democratization research. This paper addresses this research gap. It is the first attempt to develop a concept theory of democracy promotion, which includes support and protection of democracy. Coupling this with a depiction of six phases of regime change, this paper makes a second contribution: based on the proposed conceptual and theoretical integration, it generates a series of testable anchor points for further empirical analysis on what strategies are most likely to be effective during the various phases of regime change.
Topic:: International Relations, Democratization, Regime Change, Democracy, and Autocracy
Political Geography:: Global Focus

15. Understanding and Responding to Global Democratic Backsliding

Author:: Thomas Carothers and Benjamin Press
Publication Date:: 10-2022
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:: Over the past two decades, democratic backsliding has become a defining trend in global politics. However, despite the extensive attention paid to the phenomenon, there is surprisingly little consensus about what is driving it. The most common explanations offered by analysts—ranging from the role of Russia and China and disruptive technologies to the rise of populism, the spread of political polarization, and democracies’ failure to deliver—fall short when tested across a wide range of cases. A more persuasive account of backsliding focuses on the central role of leader-driven antidemocratic political projects and the variety of mechanisms and motivations they entail. This paper identifies and analyzes three distinct types of backsliding efforts: grievance-fueled illiberalism, opportunistic authoritarianism, and entrenched-interest revanchism. In cases of grievance-fueled illiberalism, a political figure mobilizes a grievance, claims that the grievance is being perpetuated by the existing political system, and argues that it is necessary to dismantle democratic norms and institutions to redress the underlying wrongs. Opportunistic authoritarians, by contrast, come to power via conventional political appeals but later turn against democracy for the sake of personal political survival. In still other backsliding cases, entrenched interest groups—generally the military—that were displaced by a democratic transition use undemocratic means to reassert their claims to power. Although motivations and methods differ across backsliding efforts, a key commonality among them is their relentless focus on undermining countervailing governmental and nongovernmental institutions that are designed to keep them in check. As international democracy supporters continue to refine their strategies of responding to democratic backsliding, they must better differentiate between facilitating factors and core drivers. Such an approach will point to the need for a stronger focus on the nature of leader-driven antidemocratic projects, identifying ways to create significant disincentives for backsliding leaders, and bolstering crucial countervailing institutions. Moreover, they should deepen their differentiation of strategies to take account of the diverse motivations and methods among the three main patterns of backsliding. Only in this way will they build the needed analytic and practical capacity to meet the formidable challenge that democratic backsliding presents.
Topic:: Science and Technology, Democracy, Populism, and Democratic Backsliding
Political Geography:: Global Focus

16. Democracy in a Post-Covid World

Author:: Madeleine Albright
Publication Date:: 09-2021
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Abstract:: The SIPRI Lecture is an annual event focusing on major themes in peace and security. The event provides a platform for prominent global thought leaders sharing the values underpinning SIPRI, its research and other activities. The third SIPRI Lecture, which was held virtually on 24 May 2021, was delivered by HE Dr Madeleine Albright and focused on the theme of ‘Democracy in a Post-Covid World’. The lecture highlighted ways in which the Covid-19 pandemic and its aftershocks have transformed the world. It also stressed the importance of placing democratic values and international cooperation at the centre of any post-pandemic strategy to create a more secure, stable, healthy and prosperous world.
Topic:: Security, Development, Democracy, Peace, and COVID-19
Political Geography:: Global Focus

17. Paraguay's Compliance With The Inter-American Human Rights System

Author:: Aníbal Pérez-Liñán, Madeline Soiney, and Andrés Hernández
Publication Date:: 12-2021
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Kellogg Institute for International Studies
Abstract:: Why do new democracies comply with international human rights obligations? We analyze Paraguay’s compliance with all reparation measures requested by the Inter-American Human Rights System over the past two decades. In contrast to most studies, which focus on reparation measures ordered by a single organ in the system, our study covers all orders resulting from friendly settlements, reports published by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and rulings by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. We provide a novel classification of human rights cases, and evaluate three competing explanations for compliance: legal factors, international pressures, and domestic political will. Our analysis of 1,426 reparation-years underscores the importance of changes in political will over time.
Topic:: Human Rights, Democracy, Rule of Law, and Institutions
Political Geography:: Latin America, Paraguay, and Global Focus

18. Can the U.S. Still Be an Example to the World?

Author:: Renee M. Earle
Publication Date:: 02-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: American Diplomacy
Institution:: American Diplomacy
Abstract:: Between January 6 and January 20, disbelieving viewers in America and throughout the world watched two weeks of American history, unlike any before, cascade across their TV screens like a 33vinyl record played at 78 RPMs. Cameras recorded the dizzying transformation of the Capitol from take-for-granted placidity, to unimaginable desecration, and finally to a stage festooned to welcome the inauguration of a new president. Foreign Service friends and colleagues in Washington, DC and abroad wondered what the world would take away from these images. We had often encountered military and armed police patrolling cities in other countries—but never in OUR capital. A Department of Justice colleague worried that our work abroad, such as justice system reform in countries from Colombia to Afghanistan, might now be at risk. After witnessing the January 6 events on Capitol Hill, would our overseas partners embrace us with as much confidence? The Constitution and citizen participation in a democracy played a large role in my career abroad as a public diplomacy foreign service officer with the State Department. In the years after the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain fell, supported by the FAS (Freedom Support Act) and SEED (Support for East European Democracy) Congressional appropriations, helping the people of Central Europe and the former Soviet Union construct, or reconstruct, democratic institutions and practice was an important focus for our embassies in East and Central Europe. These programs were broadly welcomed by our host countries.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Democracy, and January 6
Political Geography:: North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

19. Thinking beyond Democracy and Freedom: A Post 9/11 War on Terrorism Scenario

Author:: Rana Eijaz Ahmad and Muhammad Sajid
Publication Date:: 07-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Journal of Political Studies
Institution:: Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:: This paper is going to explore the world beyond democracy and the shrouded concept of freedom. In the world of 'globalution' where revolution comes through Multinational Corporations and any specific form of government does not work but tolerance. Tolerance for this paper is all about respect for each other’s' ideology, opinion, and status. It makes us wise enough to make our surroundings a harmonized and liveable place. The dichotomous nature of societies demands space for each other. However, we humans are supposed to respect each other's existence without any specifications. We are just human beings instead of Confucianists, Communists, Capitalists, Hindus, Christians, and Muslims. Humans are born free but their specifications have made them intolerant towards each other. Tolerance is a basic ingredient of democracy, which is a means to an end, not an end itself. Freedom can only be observed with impositions and impositions are against the concept of freedom. Thus, this paper will conclude the outcome of the nature of the modern sovereign state system. It is teemed with liberalism (a mixture of liberalism and realism) and liberacantilism (a mixture of liberalism and mercantilism). Misinterpretations of the West have made certain errors during the post 9/11 socalled war against terrorism. These errors cumulatively transform terrorism into 'errorism'. This 'errorism' is bringing home the world that inequality and imbalances are occurring horizontally and vertically making this world disorder. Industrialization is going on in the West and the population is increasing in the rest, breaking the "iron cage of liberalism." It demands a glocal system of governance that could sustain people's co-existence at home and abroad. The triangulation method with primary and secondary sources would be used in the process of this research.
Topic:: Globalization, Democracy, 9/11, War on Terror, and Freedom
Political Geography:: Global Focus

20. National Policy Space: Reframing the Political Economy of Globalization and Its Implications for National Sovereignty and Democracy

Author:: Thomas I. Palley
Publication Date:: 01-2021
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts Amherst
Abstract:: This paper critiques the trilemma framing of the political economy of globalization, and offers an alternative framing rooted in the construct of national policy space. Globalization causes changes in policy space that have drop-down implications for national sovereignty and democratic politics. Globalization involves choices regarding the “degree,” “type,” and “dimensions” of international economic integration. Contrary to the trilemma, the multi-faceted nature of the choices means there are no inevitable implications for sovereignty or democracy. Globalization is an intrinsically political project. To the extent it is now driving a nationalistic anti-democratic turn in politics, responsibility lies with political elites.
Topic:: Globalization, Political Economy, Sovereignty, and Democracy
Political Geography:: Global Focus

21. Why Summit Optics May Help De-escalate Public Appetite for Conflict

Author:: Max Plithides
Publication Date:: 08-2021
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:: As competition between democracies and autocratic adversaries such as North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China intensifies, democratic publics may increasingly pressure their politicians to take a more confrontational stance. The implications are dangerous. Public pressure for confrontation during the Cold War caused numerous foreign policy fiascos.1 Public pressure also at times undermined the broad political unity necessary for concluding diplomatic agreements— even between democratic allies.2 How then, as the world enters a new era of great power competition, can public pressure and anger be defused and foreign policy put on a more rational footing? This policy brief, part of a series on great power competition, argues that bilateral summits with autocratic leaders may have a key role to play in shifting the public’s collective emotional ethos. It analyzes results from a large-scale survey experiment, designed around the historic 2018 Singapore Summit, which represented the first-ever meeting of the leaders of North Korea and the United States and was preceded by months of saber rattling.3 According to conventional logic the Summit was worthless: It produced a joint communiqué with “no concrete specifics”4 and had no effect on President Trump’s approval rating.5 Yet evidence shows that joint photographs from the Summit reduced bellicosity in American public opinion towards North Korea by allowing President Trump to act as a visual empathetic mediator. The Singapore Summit thus broadly evinces the potential value of bilateral summits to reduce tensions with autocratic adversaries.
Topic:: Democracy, Citizenship, Strategic Competition, and Autocracy
Political Geography:: Global Focus

22. The Limits of Democracy

Author:: D. Eric Schansberg
Publication Date:: 10-2021
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: The Cato Institute
Abstract:: There’s an old saying that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the others. Or putting it another way: the best form of government is a benevolent and knowledgeable dictator, except for the problem of finding a good and wise leader. Whatever democracy’s strengths, they are relative not absolute, and they are contingent on context—namely, the people being governed, the people governing, and the underlying institutions.
Topic:: Politics, Governance, Democracy, and Populism
Political Geography:: Global Focus

23. A Digital Social Contract That Safeguards Democracies and promotes Women's Rights Is Urgently Needed

Author:: Lucina Di Meco
Publication Date:: 12-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Institution:: Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Abstract:: Globally, women leaders online face relentless abuse, threats, and gendered disinformation campaigns, enabled by the lack of regulation on social media platforms causing women to become discouraged from entering public leadership and allowing anti-democratic regimes to silence critics and undermine women’s political participation. In Turkey, proposed social media reform allowing government regulation based on poorly defined definitions of disinformation coupled with the backsliding of women’s rights movements are providing a breeding ground for gendered disinformation. A small window has opened to show the responsibility of platforms for not acting sooner to address the harms their products cause on women, and democracy. We must take advantage of this moment by highlighting what the evidence demonstrates, shaping the global conversation on online harms against women.
Topic:: Women, Democracy, Gender, and Digital Space
Political Geography:: Global Focus

24. Democracy and the Challenges of Climate Change

Author:: Kevin Casas-Zamora
Publication Date:: 12-2021
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:: Climate change, being one of the most pressing issues today, has been addressed by many countries at the local, regional and global level. In this issue briefing, Dr. Kevin Casas-Zamora, Secretary-General of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance discusses the challenges, strengths, and opportunities that democracy faces in tackling climate change. He states that the main challenges in tackling climate change are based on short-termism, self-referring mechanisms, and elements of governing capacities. Furthermore, he argues that democracy shows strength in this sense as a system of governance that allows for a strong civil society, free flow of information, societal consensus, and peaceful transformations of conflicts.
Topic:: Climate Change, Democracy, and Participatory Budgeting
Political Geography:: Global Focus

25. Overcoming Challenges to Democracy and Lorem Ipsum Governance Programs in Dolor Sit Post-Conflict Countries

Author:: Fernanda Buril, Bailey Dinman, and Chad Vickery
Publication Date:: 05-2021
Content Type:: Research Paper
Institution:: International Foundation for Electoral Systems
Abstract:: The quality of democracies around the globe is declining while political crises and conflicts are worsening in several regions. This context makes democracy and governance assistance both increasingly difficult and ever more crucial. In conflict and post-conflict transitional environments, weakened institutions, political turmoil, social divisions and grievances and security threats often hinder efforts to build or rebuild democracy and good governance. Although the COVID-19 crisis led to several ceasefires in early 2020, conflicts are still on the rise globally. This makes it crucial for donors and implementers to understand how to better support partners in these contexts, optimize resources and adapt and improve existing and future programs.
Topic:: Governance, Democracy, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:: Global Focus

26. Contemporary Challenges to Global Democracy

Author:: Erica Frantz
Publication Date:: 03-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Brown Journal of World Affairs
Institution:: Brown Journal of World Affairs
Abstract:: Today’s democracies are under threat. According to the watchdog organiza- tion Freedom House, each year of the past decade has seen a decline in global democracy.1 Importantly, many of these declines have occurred in wealthier and more established democracies, which scholars have typically considered resistant to democratic backsliding. In some instances, these erosions have left democracies weakened, such as in India and the United States; however, in other instances, they have led to complete democratic collapse and the emergence of authoritarianism, such as in Turkey and Serbia.
Topic:: Governance, Democracy, Dictatorship, Political Crisis, and Autocracy
Political Geography:: Global Focus

27. A Civil or Uncivil Civil Society?

Author:: Liv Tørres
Publication Date:: 11-2021
Content Type:: Research Paper
Institution:: Center on International Cooperation
Abstract:: Civil society is part and parcel of the institutional architecture that will be crucial to help us out of our current crisis of staggering inequality, pandemic trauma and required recovery. Yet, civil society is large, complex, fragmented, and polarized. It gained renewed and considerable attention during, and after, the ‘Third Wave’ of democracy in the early 1990s when trade unions, professional organizations, women’s and civic organizations, as well as religious organizations and churches in many countries mobilized for democratic change. This was, of course, not the first nor the last period of civic action and mobilization. Civil society has, however, changed dramatically over the past decades. The number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has grown. Membership in civil society organizations has kept up, but the meaning of membership has most probably changed. Civic space is under considerable pressure, while social movements, activism, and protests have increased. All in all, civil society now represents a wide variety of actors with different governance structures, with/without membership, varying in size and agenda.
Topic:: Civil Society, Democracy, NGOs, and Participation
Political Geography:: Global Focus

28. Turning the Tide on Dirty Money

Author:: Trevor Sutton and Ben Judah
Publication Date:: 02-2021
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:: To promote domestic resilience and curb the malign influence of authoritarian powers, the United States and its democratic partners need to unite against corruption and kleptocracy.
Topic:: Corruption, Democracy, Kleptocracy, and Dark Money
Political Geography:: Global Focus

29. Restoring Trust in the Think Tank Sector

Author:: Ben Freeman and Eli Clifton
Publication Date:: 05-2021
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:: Think tanks produce valuable research reports, opinion pieces, and expert commentary on television and radio; their research fellows and associates testify regularly before Congress. But their work can be compromised by their funders, a lack of transparency, and conflicts of interest. Given public distrust of the U.S. policymaking process, think tanks have a valuable opportunity to take tangible and necessary steps to help reinstill public confidence in the government’s ability to address our nation’s economic, health, environmental, and foreign policy challenges. Embracing simple standards of funding transparency, complying with the Foreign Agent Registration Act, FARA, and identifying potential or apparent conflicts of interest are necessary steps for think tanks to bolster the credibility of their work and help restore public confidence in the policymaking process. The specific measures explored in this paper are three: Basic standards of donor disclosure and funding transparency must be more widely embraced. Think tanks should be transparent about their funding to preempt potential criticism of undisclosed conflicts of interest involving funders and research products. The long-term benefits of transparency far outweigh the short-term difficulties and publicity challenges that may result from disclosing sources of funding. Good-faith efforts to disclose activity that may require registration under FARA regulations are essential. This would demonstrate institutional commitments to transparency, avoid any impression of undisclosed conflicts of interest, and serve as endorsements of the Justice Department’s efforts to limit foreign interference in the U.S. political system. Think tanks should proactively identify the appearance of potential conflicts of interest between sources of funding and staff doing work to be offered in the public sphere. Such measures would show that research institutions take seriously the potential for such conflicts and are disclosing when funders — even if funding is not directed to the research product in question — may stand to benefit directly or indirectly from a research product or policy proposal. Taken together, these measures are essential to setting think tanks apart from a political system the public does not trust and sees as captured by special interests and dark money, money from opaque sources intended to influence political and policy outcomes. Rebuilding and maintaining credibility in an era increasingly marked by misinformation and public cynicism requires think tanks to actively address the areas in which they have often fallen short: donor transparency and conflict-of-interest avoidance.
Topic:: Democracy, Think Tanks, and Transparency
Political Geography:: Global Focus

30. Cross-Country Evidence on the Determinants of Preferences for Redistribution

Author:: Gianluca Grimalda and David Pipke
Publication Date:: 06-2021
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:: Redistribution differs widely across countries, but our understanding of why this is the case is limited. In democracies, the extent of redistribution should ultimately reflect citizens’ preferences. We measure preferences for redistribution in six developed countries through internationally standardized questions in which respondents are faced with realistic budgetary constraints on their choice. We also measure a broad array of demographic, attitudinal, and ideological characteristics and examine their correlations with the preferred pattern of redistribution. As expected, individual income is associated with lower demand for redistribution, but this relationship loses significance once other factors are controlled for. Beliefs on social mobility have, in the aggregate, the largest effect in reducing demand for redistribution, the effect being largest in the US but insignificant in Italy and Slovenia. Trust in government has a negative effect on demand for redistribution across all countries. In line with other studies, we interpret this result as evidence that people believing that the political élite is corrupt demand more redistribution. Financial security, a proxy for the Prospect of Upward Mobility hypothesis, is also a significant correlate of preferences for redistribution, the effect being largest in Japan but small in the UK and Slovenia. Finally, discrimination of racial minorities is associated with lower demand for redistribution, but the effect is only significant in the US and Germany. Overall, the main theories that have been proposed to account for preferences for redistribution are confirmed to be valid, but with significant variation across countries.
Topic:: Minorities, Democracy, Economic Mobility, Social Order, and Redistribution
Political Geography:: Global Focus

31. How the United States Can Support Nascent Political Parties

Author:: Patrick Quirk and Jan Surotchak
Publication Date:: 05-2021
Content Type:: Commentary and Analysis
Institution:: Council on International Policy (CIP)
Abstract:: Supporting democracy and human rights overseas is front and center in the Biden administration’s foreign policy. The White House has committed to hold a “summit for democracy” this year, vocally condemned human rights abuses by China, and called for budget increases in foreign assistance and diplomacy critical to execute its democracy agenda abroad. As the Biden team designs this agenda, it will take stock of existing democracy assistance approaches and toolkits to make sure they address the current landscape of threats (i.e., a rise in Russian and Chinese malign influence) and changing needs of democracy partners on the ground (i.e., training on new technology). One area that is in desperate need of an update is how the U.S. helps strengthen political parties abroad, something it has done since the 1980s. The U.S. approach to supporting parties has not kept pace with the evolution of these organizations over the last ten years. Increasingly, political parties are taking novel forms that arise from so called “people power” movements and often focus more on mobilizing voters than formulating policy. One of the four most common types of parties today are those that emerge from mass protest movements and widespread latent dissatisfaction with traditional parties. Examples include the Five Star Movement in Italy, the Union to Save Romania, the New Conservative Party in Latvia, and Semilla in Guatemala. Getting support to this party type ‘right’ is important because many of the countries where these entities are emerging matter for U.S. interests. In both the Czech Republic and Slovakia – NATO allies on the front line of countering Russian and Chinese influence – new, anti-establishment parties are running the government, as traditional parties have struggled with accusations of corruption and failure to meet citizen needs. In Mexico and Brazil, both major strategic partners of the United States, emergent political organizations have taken power. In Iraq, citizens protesting government corruption and inefficiencies have formed several new parties to contest the October 2021 elections and challenge the political establishment. Yet in these and other contexts, the United States lacks an approach to structure its support of such nascent parties. Here, we outline recommendations for selecting which parties to support and then a framework to maximize effectiveness of U.S. assistance to them.
Topic:: Human Rights, International Cooperation, Democracy, Political Parties, Influence, and Partisanship
Political Geography:: North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

32. The Digital Technology Agenda at the Summit for Democracy

Author:: Eileen Donahoe
Publication Date:: 03-2021
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: The Ambassadors Review
Institution:: Council of American Ambassadors
Abstract:: The United States plans to host a Summit for Democracy to advance President Joseph Biden’s stated priority for national security of revitalizing democracy. Digital technology must be a focal point of the Summit. The future of democracy depends, in large part, on the ability of democracies to confront the digital transformation of society – to address the challenges and to capitalize on its opportunities. Over the past decade, democracies have struggled to meet this test, while authoritarians have used technology to deepen repression and extend global influence. To combat the digital authoritarian threat, democracies must be rallied around a shared values-based vision of digital society and a joint strategic technology agenda. The Summit tech agenda should revolve around five core themes: 1) Democracies must get their own tech policy “houses” in order; 2) To win the normative battle, democracies must compete and win the technology battle; 3) Technological transformation necessitates governance innovation; 4) To win the geopolitical battle for the soul of 21st century digital society, democracies must band together; 5) Technology must be reclaimed for citizens and humanity.
Topic:: Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Democracy, and Summit
Political Geography:: Global Focus

33. What Is So Foreign About Foreign Influence Operations?

Author:: Hedvig Ördén and James Pamment
Publication Date:: 01-2021
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:: Influence operations are increasingly seen as a threat to democratic societies because they can corrupt the integrity of political deliberation. As individuals engage in debate on social media, political deliberation becomes vulnerable to potentially destructive forms of interference. Many debates on what to do about influence operations emphasize that these operations constitute what is deemed to be a foreign threat. But does the notion of foreignness, viewed in isolation, constitute a helpful lens for distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate influence operations? Ultimately, the lens of foreignness is only helpful when applied to a narrow set of cases. One sensible way of reviewing when the concept of foreignness can be useful in distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate influence operations is to consider three separate conceptions of how to determine what counts as foreign: foreign states, foreign citizens, and foreign interests. In the first case, influence operations are seen as threatening acts directed at a targeted state by foreign states, using behaviors seen as analogous to acts of war. In the second instance, influence operations are considered threatening acts conducted by foreign citizens that undermine domestic democratic systems in a targeted state. In cases of the third sort, influence operations are viewed as acts aimed at advancing foreign interests through the illegitimate employment of soft power. Given these various models, the notion of foreignness constitutes a useful lens for discussions of influence operations in cases when there is overwhelming evidence of state-based, hybrid, and irregular warfare. An argument can also be made for employing the distinction in relation to the protection of democratic institutions, such as elections. However, when influence operations are regarded as a more generalized threat to political deliberation, foreignness is not a helpful category for determining the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such campaigns. In such cases, rather than focusing on the (domestic or foreign) identity of the malicious actors themselves, it is more fruitful to conceive of illegitimacy in terms of specific manipulative communication techniques. Suitable countermeasures could include, for instance, creating greater transparency surrounding, or even restricting, the use of artificial techniques to inflate the level of perceived engagement a piece of online content generates.
Topic:: Democracy, Soft Power, and Foreign Interference
Political Geography:: Global Focus

34. How Middle-Power Democracies Can Help Renovate Global Democracy Support

Author:: Rachel Kleinfeld, Thomas Carothers, Steven Feldstein, and Richard Youngs
Publication Date:: 02-2021
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:: Middle-power democracies—countries which regardless of their geopolitical weight have made democracy support a sustained component of their foreign policy—will be crucial to reimagining democracy support strategies and policies to better meet the moment. Some of these states have crafted new initiatives and wielded diplomatic tools to deepen their impact in recent years. However, these states have on the whole punched below their collective weight. This paper suggests that middle-power democracies can maximize their impact on global democracy in the following ways: Enhancing solidarity: when a country acts courageously in defense of democracy, it needs to know that others will stand alongside it. Sharpening their focus: middle-power democracies should target policy areas aligned with democratic values on issues both at the top of the geopolitical agenda and at the top-of-mind for citizens around the world—for example, economic recovery, injustice and discrimination, corruption, digital repression, and climate change. Improving diplomatic cooperation: pursuing flexible and focused multilateral partnerships allows for collaboration on key policy interests and amplifies middle-power actions.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Democracy, Solidarity, and COVID-19
Political Geography:: Global Focus and United States of America

35. Protecting Democracy: The Relevance of International Democracy Promotion for Term Limits

Author:: Julia Leininger and Daniel Nowack
Publication Date:: 01-2021
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:: The question of whether and how democracy can be promoted and protected through international support has recently gained relevance. On the one hand, the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan has reignited a public debate on the limits of democracy promotion. On the other hand, the need for international democracy protection is growing due to an increase in autocratisation trends worldwide. DIE research shows that it is possible to effectively support and protect democracy. In this context, both the protection of central democratic institutions, such as term limits for rulers, and the promotion of democratic forces that pro-actively resist attempts at auto¬cratisation are central. Since 2010, autocratisation trends have been characterised by the fact that they often slowly erode achieved democratisation successes and consolidate autocracies. The circumvention and abolition of presidential term limits by incumbent presidents are part of the typical “autocratisation toolbox”. Term extensions limit democratic control and expand presidential powers. Democracy promotion and protection play a relevant role in preserving presidential term limits, and thus in protecting democracy. They contribute towards improving the “duration” and “survival chances” of presidential term limits. The more international democracy promotion is provided, the lower the risk that term limits will be circumvented. For example, a DIE analysis found that a moderately high democracy promotion mean of $2.50 per capita over four years on average halves the risk of presidential term limits being circumvented.
Topic:: NATO, Development, Diplomacy, Democracy, and Autocracy
Political Geography:: Global Focus

36. Fragile States Index 2020

Author:: Fund for Peace
Publication Date:: 05-2020
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: The Fund for Peace
Abstract:: The Fragile States Index, produced by The Fund for Peace, is a critical tool in highlighting not only the normal pressures that all states experience, but also in identifying when those pressures are pushing a state towards the brink of failure. By highlighting pertinent issues in weak and failing states, The Fragile States Index — and the social science framework and software application upon which it is built — makes political risk assessment and early warning of conflict accessible to policy-makers and the public at large.
Topic:: Democracy, Fragile States, Brexit, COVID-19, and Instability
Political Geography:: Africa, Iraq, United Kingdom, Europe, South Asia, Sudan, Central Asia, Middle East, India, Uzbekistan, Libya, Colombia, South America, Lebanon, Mozambique, Chile, Côte d'Ivoire, Global Focus, and Burkina Faso

37. Political Trust vs. Turnout in Modern Democracies

Author:: Izabela Kapsa
Publication Date:: 01-2020
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:: Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:: The article analyzes the relations between political trust - one of the most important values in the life of political communities - and election-related behaviors in the narrow meaning of voting. Researchers investigate the phenomenon of decreasing turnout as one of the expressions of democratic crisis. When studying such a complex problem, it is essential to search for multi-theme causes which might be helpful in understanding the topic and possibly finding a solution for it. The author of this article, while assuming the correctness of analyzes conducted thus far, which indicate that the problem lies in weaker attachment to political parties, less interest in politics and inadequate tools, raises questions whether the decreasing turnout in individual states may be related to the level of trust that citizens put in political institutions and whether there is a relation between these both indicators. In order to answer these questions, the author employs a quantitative analysis of data which derive from reports containing percentage levels of political trust and turnout in the elections, a comparative analysis, as well as an overview of literature on the subject.
Topic:: Elections, Democracy, Voting, Participation, and Turnout
Political Geography:: Global Focus

38. Linking Values and Strategy: How Democracies Can Offset Autocratic Advances

Author:: Jessica Brandt, Zack Cooper, Bradley Hanlon, and Laura Rosenberger
Publication Date:: 10-2020
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:: The United States and other liberal democracies face a persistent asymmetric threat from authoritarian challengers who aim to reshape the global order in their favor. Illiberal regimes use a wide range of tools across the political, economic, technological, and information domains to undermine democratic institutions and alliances, prevent criticism of their own regimes and governance systems, and establish norms and standards favorable to autocratic rule. In the case of digital information technology, these efforts go beyond shaping norms to controlling the infrastructure that transmits information itself. To date, democracies have been slow to adapt to this contest, allowing autocrats to seize the initiative by taking advantage of the openness of liberal systems. Fortunately, the United States can regain the initiative in this emerging competition with authoritarianism—if it addresses its vulnerabilities, leverages its strategic advantages, and reframes the contest on its own terms. The United States faces an array of domestic challenges—political polarization, inequality and racism, erosion of traditional media, a growing tech-government divide, flawed and porous political influence systems, and impaired economic competitiveness—that threaten to undermine the United States’ competitive strengths. Autocrats can leverage these cleavages and constraints in the short-term, but in the long-term democratic characteristics confer tremendous strategic advantages. The United States’ advantages include a vibrant civil society, dynamic and competitive economy, innovative private sector, and robust network of alliances. Leveraging these strengths requires a national strategy to offset autocratic advances by seizing on the advantages of open systems, building resilience into democratic institutions, and exploiting the brittleness of authoritarian regimes. This Task Force report outlines the logic and contours of such a national strategy across four overlapping non-military domains.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, National Security, Authoritarianism, and Democracy
Political Geography:: North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

39. Emergency Powers, COVID-19 and the New Challenge for Human Rights

Author:: Michele Collazzo and Alexandra Tyan
Publication Date:: 06-2020
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:: “A human crisis that is fast becoming a human rights crisis”. UN Secretary General António Guterres was among the first to raise the alarm about possible human rights implications of government measures to fight COVID-19. Since its outbreak, 87 states – both authoritarian and established democracies – have declared a state of emergency to curb the spread of the virus, which implies certain derogations from international human rights conventions. Protecting the right to life and physical integrity are fundamental duties facing government authorities, commitments enshrined in law – specifically Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Derogations from human rights conventions are permissible under certain circumstances, but any limitation must be motivated by absolute necessity, must not be disproportionate and must be limited in time.
Topic:: Security, Human Rights, Democracy, Media, Crisis Management, and COVID-19
Political Geography:: Global Focus

40. Effects of US Foreign Assistance on Democracy Building, 1990–2014: An Update

Author:: Steven E. Finkel, Aníbal Pérez-Liñán, Michael Neureiter, and Chris A. Belasco
Publication Date:: 06-2020
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Kellogg Institute for International Studies
Abstract:: This paper updates our earlier work on the impact of US foreign assistance on democratic outcomes in recipient countries using newly available USAID Foreign Aid Explorer data covering the 2001–2014 period, as well as new outcome measures derived from Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) data. Building on the theoretical and empirical framework established in our previous study and in subsequent work in the field, we estimate: a) the effect of overall USAID Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) expenditures on general indices of democracy, b) changes in the effects of DRG expenditures after 2001, and c) the conditions that moderate the impact of DRG funding at the country level in the contemporary era. We find that the effect of DRG expenditures decreased dramatically in the 2002–2014 period, relative to the modest effect shown in the previous study for the period immediately following the end of the Cold War. However, DRG aid remains effective in the current era under favorable conditions. Further analysis demonstrates important conditional effects related to patterns of DRG investment, such that aid has greater impact when levels of security assistance are low (indicating competing priorities) and when prior DRG investment is low (indicating diminishing returns). In addition, DRG is more effective at intermediate levels of democratization and less so in contexts of democratic backsliding.
Topic:: Security, Development, Globalization, Governance, Democracy, and Public Policy
Political Geography:: North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

41. The changing nature and architecture of U.S. democracy assistance

Author:: Luiza Rodrigues Mateo
Publication Date:: 12-2020
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (RBPI)
Institution:: Instituto Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (IBRI)
Abstract:: Democracy assistance is an important tool of United States foreign policy, serving strategic interests in association with several agendas, from human rights to national security. The objective of this article is to make a historical reconstruction of the definitions and practices of American democracy assistance, describing its institutional architecture, budgetary levels and political priorities. Special attention is given to U.S. foreign aid rationale and contemporary trends, recapturing the last thirty years of growth in democracy assistance since the end of the Cold War.
Topic:: Foreign Policy, Foreign Aid, and Democracy
Political Geography:: Global Focus and United States of America

42. Democracy by Design: An Affirmative Response to the Illiberal Use of Technology for 2021

Author:: Kara Frederick
Publication Date:: 12-2020
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:: Aglobal contest between democracies and autocracies is raging on the digital front. Technology stands to alter the balance between free, open societies and closed, repressive regimes. Nation states in direct competition with the United States seek to project global influence by shaping an existing digital order to their will. Impulses toward illiberal use of technology at home threaten to curtail individual liberties, constrict opportunity, and erode a truly open society. Democracies do not yet have a model for how to confront this. In the United States, a roadmap for a solution must start with the fundamental question: How should U.S. technology companies, with the help of the U.S. government, respond to the illiberal use of technology by authoritarian actors abroad? This report contends with this question by identifying concrete actions and threat-mitigating strategies that contain the input of government, the tech sector, civil society, and academia. It provides starting points to address the systemic risk inherent in dealing with authoritarian regimes and also examines cost imposition on those complicit in tech-enabled human rights abuses. Yet a strategy aimed only at staunching the illiberal use of technology will fail in the long term. Instead, the U.S. government and tech companies alike must recruit democratic allies to purvey an affirmative agenda that promotes digital freedom across the globe. This report proposes an agenda that stresses privacy leadership by the United States and its technology companies. It identifies areas of collaboration for U.S. allies and democratic partners, like digital trade, foreign law enforcement requests for data, and technical standards. This report’s affirmative agenda also contains an imperative for U.S. tech companies to build commercial norms toward digital freedom and incentivize transparency within their own ranks. For digital freedom to prevail over authoritarian uses of technology, democracies must present something better. Together, they must establish an alternative model for the use of technology globally. These recommendations build that democratic case, starting with the United States.
Topic:: Human Rights, Science and Technology, Authoritarianism, and Democracy
Political Geography:: North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

43. Detecting the Ideological Position of Political Islam Towards Liberal Democracy in Muslim Countries

Author:: Nikola Gjorshoski and Goran Ilik
Publication Date:: 01-2020
Content Type:: Working Paper
Journal:: Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:: Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:: The question of the correlation between Islam, political Islam, and liberal democracy has so far been the most exposed topic in exploring the democratic capacity of political Islam and Islamic societies in general. What is particularly intriguing about the relationship between political Islam and liberal democracy is the fact of its westernized triviality that has received a pejorative tone in Islamic political circles. Simplified, the triviality of liberal democracy for the Islamic political campus implies imposing a model of democracy that cannot be fully compatible with the original Muslim notion of society and government. Hence, the following paper analyzes exactly the relations of political Islam to specific inherent categories of liberal democracy such as the rule of law, representative government, the separation of powers, and secularism as diferenta specifica of liberal western democratic discourse. Through the methods of induction and deduction, the author will illustrate how appropriate tangent or divergence is illustrated and how this is reflected in the general ideological positioning of political Islam towards liberal democracy in Muslim countries through an axiological and praxeological perspective.
Topic:: Democracy, Rule of Law, Islamism, Liberalism, Secularism, and Sharia
Political Geography:: Middle East, North Africa, and Global Focus

44. Democracy and Prosperity: Reinventing Capitalism through a Turbulent Century, Torben Iversen and David Soskice

Author:: Christopher Way
Publication Date:: 07-2020
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Political Science Quarterly
Institution:: Academy of Political Science
Abstract:: In a climate of concern about the future of capitalism and democracy, this book provides a robust defense of both. Capitalism and democracy, Torben Iversen and David Soskice argue, are mutually reinforcing, and the combination has been remarkably successful over the past century. In what will probably be the most discussed part of the book, they anticipate that the symbiotic pair will continue to thrive, overcoming the challenges posed by populism and inequality. Democracy and Prosperity provides a challenge to those who believe that capitalism is increasingly unable to fulfill the needs of broad swaths of society and that democracy is creaking under the strains of populism.
Topic:: History, Democracy, Capitalism, and Book Review
Political Geography:: Global Focus

45. How Democracy Ends, David Runciman

Author:: Tom Ginsburg
Publication Date:: 01-2020
Content Type:: Journal Article
Journal:: Political Science Quarterly
Institution:: Academy of Political Science
Abstract:: It is hardly a secret that democracy is in trouble around the world, and the phenomenon of backsliding has prompted a small wave of books diagnosing the problem and suggesting solutions. David Runciman’s contribution to this literature is a breezy and readable tour through mechanisms and alternatives. Easily weaving political theory with grounded examples, he has produced a highly accessible analysis focusing more on diagnosis than cure. Runciman’s title is to be distinguished from accounts of how specific democracies are dying or what might be done to save constitutional democracy. Instead, he focuses on the idea that Western democracy is undergoing something of a midlife crisis. Nothing lasts forever, and while democracy has had a pretty good run, it now “looks exhausted in the places it has the deepest roots” (p. 72). Contemplating democracy’s death, the book is organized around a series of mechanisms by which this might come about: coup, environmental catastrophe, technological displacement, and the various alternatives of benevolent and not so benevolent authoritarianism that have been put on offer. His main argument is that while we are attracted to democracy because of its history, the past does not repeat itself, and we are likely to face new challenges not yet contemplated. If democracy dies, the autopsy will be a new one.
Topic:: Democracy, Book Review, and Political Science
Political Geography:: Global Focus

46. Russia: an increasingly repressive autocracy seeking a place on the UN Human Rights Council

Author:: Lara María Kovandova
Publication Date:: 07-2020
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for the Opening and Development of Latin America (CADAL)
Abstract:: The Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI) 2020 cautiously points to Vladimir Putin’s forging of an authoritarian-bureaucratic nomenklatura. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have denounced the deteriorating human rights situation in Russia, with freedom of speech and assembly systematically undermined and violated. The recent plebiscite to reform the constitution is the epitome of Mr Putin masquerading the authoritarian regime as a democracy.
Topic:: United Nations, Authoritarianism, Democracy, Vladimir Putin, Human Rights Violations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch
Political Geography:: Russia, Latin America, and Global Focus

47. BTI and Cuba: the State of democratic denial

Author:: Manuel Cuesta Morúa
Publication Date:: 06-2020
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for the Opening and Development of Latin America (CADAL)
Abstract:: Compared with other reports on Cuba, the Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI) has several noticeable advantages. The first is that it is a comprehensive report, embedded in three pillars: economics, politics and governance. The second is that it captures trends, whereas more reports are static. The third is that it considers themes through indicators, which most reports ignore. And as it is issued every two years it makes it possible to know the consistency (or lack, thereof) of the transformation and its rhythm. The following up. Has Cuba been transformed in 14 years (2006-2020)? Reading the report, it can be concluded that it has, whilst a new concept is introduced: that of static transformation –a sample of changes that leave the structures of a society intact.
Topic:: Human Rights, Governance, Authoritarianism, Democracy, Society, and Human Rights Violations
Political Geography:: Cuba, Latin America, and Global Focus

48. Global Governance in 2030: Prospective Scenarios on the Future of Politics

Author:: Julia Pomares and María Belén Abdala
Publication Date:: 01-2020
Content Type:: Special Report
Institution:: Center for the Implementation of Public Policies for Equity and Growth (CIPPEC)
Abstract:: We are living in an era of unprecedented changes. Mature democracies, emerging polities and the least electorally competitive countries are now facing new challenges in a globalized world. They are all dealing with technological breakthroughs, changes in global economic power, ageing populations and urbanization of their territories. Today’s picture shows that social inclusion seems to be an unfulfilled promise, and social cohesion is weakening. Some citizens are disenchanted, and political systems are having trouble adapting and responding to new demands. According to Edelman’s Trust Barometer (2017), one in every two countries does not have faith in the system, and we still do not know how this picture is going to evolve. In democracies, pro-democracy attitudes coexist with openness to nondemocratic forms of governance, such as rule by experts (49 per cent), strong leaders (26 per cent) or the military (24 per cent). This picture might be part of a transition period or indicating that polities are not being able to cope with some of the new challenges. It is why we need to think about the future of politics and how these trends will shape global governance in the next 10 to 20 years. Are political systems ready to govern a digital economy? How should political leaders evolve to address radical changes in an automated world? What will the consequences be for global governance and for the role of G20? This paper analyzes current global trends in domestic politics and the prospective scenarios on the future of politics. To do so, the paper presents a brief description on three forces we know will forge the future: technological breakthroughs, demographic changes and shifts in global economic power. Later, it turns to the uncertainty of the future. We live in nation states, so we first attempt to devise how these forces will shape domestic politics. We then look at global governance and the way these trends will impact upon it. The final stop of this journey is an analysis of the implications of these scenarios for the role of the G20.
Topic:: Economics, International Cooperation, Governance, Democracy, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:: Global Focus

49. From Industrial Citizenship to Private Ordering? Contract, Status, and the Question of Consent.

Author:: Ruth Dukes and Wolfgang Streeck
Publication Date:: 11-2020
Content Type:: Working Paper
Institution:: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies
Abstract:: This paper revisits the notions of contract and status found in classical sociology, legal theory, and labour law. Adopting an historical perspective, it explores the fragmentation of the status of industrial citizenship during the neoliberal period and discusses the enduring usefulness of the status/contract distinction in analyzing current trends in the regulation of working relations, including the spread of “gig” or platform-mediated work. Elements of status, it is argued, must always be present if work is to be performed and paid for as the parties require it. Claims to the contrary – for example, that the gig economy creates a labour market without search frictions and only minimal transaction costs: contracts without status – assume an undersocialized model of (monadic) social action that has no basis in the reality of social life (Durkheim, Weber). Still, status may come in a variety of forms that are more or less desirable from the perspective of workers, businesses, and society at large. The paper traces what it conceives as the privatization of status via contracts between employers and workers under the pressure of marketization and dominated by corporate hierarchies. Towards the end of the twentieth century, sociologists observed the division of workers into two groups or classes – core (with relatively well-paid and secure employment) and peripheral (low-paid and insecure). Thirty years later, gross inequalities of wealth and conceptions of the neoliberal self as ever-improving, ever-perfectible, are combining to create novel forms of status not fully anticipated by the literature.
Topic:: Democracy, Inequality, Citizenship, Private Sector, and Industry
Political Geography:: Global Focus

50. War on the virus: Military responses to COVID-19

Author:: Adam Moe Fejerskov and Johannes Lang
Publication Date:: 12-2020
Content Type:: Policy Brief
Institution:: Danish Institute for International Studies
Abstract:: Countries across the globe have mobilised security forces to counter COVID-19, but such militarised pandemic responses threaten the security of civilians and pose challenges to democracy. Main findings: When governments articulate the COVID-19 response as a ‘war’, they effectively turn a global public health crisis into an issue of national security. Granting armed forces a leading role in pandemic responses may challenge the legitimacy of other public institutions and of the armed forces themselves. The urgency of involving armed forces in COVID-19 responses means that mechanisms of audit, accountability and democratic oversight are not always upheld.
Topic:: Security, Military Affairs, Democracy, and COVID-19
Political Geography:: Global Focus

Search

Search Constraints

Search Results

Refine your search

Topic

Political Geography

Content Type

Journal

Publishing Institution

Author

Publication Year

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS